Gestalt

Great Debates
21

I think the common meanings of the words in the definition are just fine, Erratum. Despite your ingratiating condescension, I am trying to meet you halfway here, and without insulting you in return.

But you misunderstood (or misrepresented) my snippets you “quoted” to be connected somehow to an ambiguity in the definition of gestalt, when they were plainly connected to my ignorance of chemistry and neurology.

This gnat straining over the dictionary definition is tiresome, but I’ll indulge it without turning your same tactic back to you and insisting that you define what you mean by “attempt to explain”. I could go on and on about how ambiguous that request is. I could say you’ll have to clear up what you mean by “attempt to explain” in order to make any progress in the discussion.

But I won’t be that pig-headed.

Instead, I’ll try to explain. Of course, I expect you’ll ask me to explain my explanation, so I’ll go ahead and do that too.

Explanation: I think “derivable by summation of its parts” means “reasonably predictable by examination of its parts” or “definable by the union of its elements”.

Explanation of explanation: I tried to give both a way to induce and a way to deduce.

22

“But you misunderstood (or misrepresented) my snippets you “quoted” to be connected somehow to an ambiguity in the definition of gestalt, when they were plainly connected to my ignorance of chemistry and neurology.”

Since one of the quotes was mine, I feel perfectly confident in explaining that I was concerned about the vagueness of your definition. I was also concerned about your ignorance of the physics of the Uncertainty Principle, since you seemed to think it only applied to subatomic particles. Those were two completely unrelated ideas. In order to clear up the confusion over the definition, I tried to present a non-controversial example (the goldness of gold, the non-goldness of protons) which did not rely on any incorrect or questionable understanding of physics. I then asked you if this was the extent of your application of “gestalt”, or whether you wanted to say something more profound.

“This gnat straining over the dictionary definition is tiresome”

Lib, definitions are important for communication. If you mean one thing when you say “gestalt” and I mean a different thing when I say “gestalt”, how are we ever going to get anywhere in a discussion. One person’s definition of “gestalt” would call the goldness of gold atoms a gestalt property, another person would say that it is “merely a consequence of the physics of the interactions of their subatomic particles”. The goldness of gold is a consequence of the physics involved – the question is whether or not that invalidates the “goldness of gold” as a gestalt property.

“define what you mean by “attempt to explain””

You did that yourself with: “Instead, I’ll try to explain. Of course, I expect you’ll ask me to explain my explanation”. I doubted your ability to succeed in conveying your intent to me in a single post (although I do not question the sincerity of your attempt to get me to understand), because communicating the definition of an abstract concept is not easy. I’d be similarly skeptical of my own ability to communicate to you. I know what I mean by “gestalt”, but I have little faith in my ability to get you to completely understand my meaning without a back-and-forth exchange.

“reasonably predictable by examination of its parts"”

‘Reasonable’ is subjective rather than objective. Reasonable to whom? Also, is predictability a requirement, or is explainability sufficient? Weather is widely regarded as unpredictable – would you call weather a gestalt property of the molecules in the atmosphere?

““definable by the union of its elements””

The “next legal move” in a game of chess is the union of the legal moves of each individual piece. Is a game of chess a gestalt phenomenon? I would say yes – a game of chess is more than just a bunch of pieces being moved around on a board independently. It is unclear to me what you would say. Please try to explain again.

23

Before I do, and waste a lot of my time and yours, do you realize that every definition is recursive in nature, because the very words in the definition must be defined by words that themselves have definitions, and so on?

Is this going to be a case where, everytime I define a word, you ask me to define the words in the defintion?

I agree that definitions are important, but at some point, if you keep defining, you will eventually come back to your original words.

I think the dictionary definition is sufficient for us to determine whether we agree or disagree that at some point in the continuum, we become able to measure position and momentum simultaneously, and that there is nothing in the nature of the elements of the set to account for the nature of the whole set.

If you disagree, then please say so. But picking at a perfectly good dictionary definition is pointless. Were I doing what you are doing, the cries of “hijacker!” would deafen me.

With respect to the UP, my understanding indeed was that its nonduality implication applied only on the quantum level. If that is wrong, I would appreciate a cite impuning my understanding.

24

Lib:
I do not think anyone disagrees that on some scope of the continuum macroscopic objects exhibit traits which are not found in their component quanta. The reverse, of course, is also true. Shall we label this antigestalt? As I have stated before, complex objects quite often, perhaps even universally, exhibit traits which are not found in their component elements. Is this enough to delineate a “getalt”. If so, then gestalt is simply a descriptor for traits that rely upon organization as well as material.

Your definition, however, also stresses the need for “derivability”. Now, we can derive/explain many more things today than we could a century ago. So it seems that your gestalt is simply a moving measure of those things which reason has not yet explicated. Of course, that carries with it the implication that “gestalt” is really defined by human knowledge and perception, not by any innate properties of an object/organization.

To defend your idea of a “natural gestalt” you need to show not only an object that is not derivable from its component parts now, but one that can never be derivable from its component parts. Otherwise, you are making a point about the state of our understanding, not about the intrinsic nature of the object in question. Good luck in your quest.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

25

Lib: “I think the dictionary definition is sufficient for us to determine whether we agree or disagree …”

The reason that I ask you to clarify your definition is because this is not correct. You seemed satisfied that you had “made your case” by quoting from a dictionary, but you had not made your case. Dictionaries are no substitute for argument. If you wish to couch your arguments in terms of definitions, then it is incumbent upon you to make the definition clearly understood. I’d be perfectly happy to have you explain what you mean through non-controversial examples, but you don’t seem to want to do that, so I am compelled to ask you for better and better definitions. Yes, I will ask you for a better definition every time if you continue to include completely subjective and vague elements in the definition, like “derivable” or “reasonable”. This is the point of contention. If I were to define gestalt, I would leave out the weird “derivable” part, and simply say that a gestalt property is one which is held by the collection of parts when that property is not directly attributable to the parts themselves. For example, the mass of an object is attributable to the constituent parts, but the “goldness of gold” is not – it is attributable to the combination of those parts. Using this definition, “gestalt” is trivially present everywhere. Now I can’t tell if this is what you are talking about or if you are trying to say something more subtle. If you can explain that with definitions, do it. If you can explain with examples, do it. If you can explain with some other mechanism, do it. But you need to explain if you mean something more subtle. I don’t think anybody disputes that the goldness of gold and the non-goldness of protons, but I have the distinct feeling that this isn’t what you are talking about. I don’t even know if you would classify that as gestalt or not – because you have this odd (in my opinion) inclusion of derivability in your definition. Basiscally, you (as Spiritus said) include the knowledge of the observer in the classification of whether or not an object has the property of being “gestalt”. Does that mean that the goldness of gold was a gestalt property before modern physics, but not today? Does it mean it’s a gestalt property to some physicists but not others? Is there some point during the education of a physicists where he says “hey, wait a minute, that’s not a gestalt property at all, I understand exactly how the interactions cause the overall effect now!”?

“If you disagree, then please say so.”

In order to agree or disagree, I need to know what you are saying. What you are trying to assert about “objective gestalt” is either trivially true or completely unfounded (in my estimation of the two different things I think you might be saying). If I could figure out what you were talking about, I would agree or disagree with you. I do not think I am alone in not understanding your position.

“picking at a perfectly good dictionary definition is pointless.”

While true, that’s irrelevant to this discussion because your definition is not “perfectly good”. Are you trying to say something about the fundamental nature of the universe? Are you trying to say something about what is knowable and what is not? Are you trying to say something about the state of modern physics, and its lack of understanding of something? I don’t know, because you don’t tell us. Instead you offer us a definition which includes a huge subjective element which is at the very heart of the matter.

“With respect to the UP, my understanding indeed was that its nonduality implication applied only on the quantum level. If that is wrong, I would appreciate a cite impuning my understanding.”

Try this page on the Uncertainty Principle and notice that nowhere in the discussion do they mention the name of a particle or any particular mass threshold. Also try this page on de Broglie waves. The Uncertainty principle becomes less and less important the more massive the object, but it’s still there. I’m not sure what you mean by “nonduality”, since everything exhibits wave/particle duality. We generally only care about these things on a subatomic scale, because on larger scales the effects due to the Uncertainty Principle, etc., are mostly negligible, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there.

26

Spiritus

That’s a good point, Spiritus. You’re right.

Erratum

I think that’s an excellent definition, and I’m willing to work with it.

You are correct, thanks.

In my own research, I was told by a very helpful person at the Why Files this information, which jives with what you’re saying:

He or she asked me for the link, and might come visit.

27

My sole point, Lib., was not to hassle you on your explorations of the nature of “gestalt” as defined in Merriam-Webster, but to illuminate the point that, outside of your own usages and my wife’s (who uses the term somewhat as you do), I have never encountered the term except in a perceptual sense…that one abstracts from the percept a totality not present from its constituent parts – I do not see this primarily as a wooden object possessing a smooth top and four legs, but as a table first, and then if needed with the details of wooden composition, quadraleggedosity, etc.

I have no objection to your positing the idea that things may have a nature not inherent in their constituent parts or the organization of the latter, if that is indeed where you are going with this. My only objection was that it is appropriate to work from the common connotation and context, i.e., in connection with perception, rather than from some philosophical base that may not be shared. (Cecil did an interesting piece on the strange things medieval Scholastic philosophers did with “philosophical realism” - which appears to be what you are asserting with your non-perceptual use of gestalt.) If I offended you in making the assertion that you may use a word as suits you (which I did not intend sarcastically), I apologize.

Is it in fact your contention that composite things, say X, do indeed have some X-ishness not inherent in their parts or their organization? This would appear to be what you mean by “gestalt” in your sense. I look forward to clarification.

28

Poly

Okay. Thanks.

I honestly cannot explain why you and I each recognize one or the other connotation as “common”. Maybe you are more familiar with psychology than ethics, and vice-versa for me, I don’t know. But, though I was aware of Gestalt Therapy, I had always seen that sort of perceptual connotation of gestalt as a very specialized subset of what I had always known as the ordinary one.

It seems like it was at my seventh birthday party (the only one I ever had) when my brother first introduced me to the term. He, fourteen, pointed out that my birthday cake was more than merely baked goods, icing, and candles. As I think back on it now, I can see where a Gestalt therapist would say that my brother was really speaking about my perception of the cake.

But the only reality that I know is the one that I perceive. Even so, that doesn’t make my perception subjective. My perception is merely the work of my senses. It is nothing but data gathering, like a geiger counter. It is when I interpret my perceptions that subjectivity arises. It is when I take a reading on my senses that I taint what I’ve seen.

Just like God and limibic system, there are two ways to come at this. There is an objective gestalt in nature that I perceive as the hand of God, or else there is a subjective Gestalt that I interpret from something in nature that isn’t there. That is not to draw a dichotomy, however, since one might have perceptions that are partly subjective and interpretations that are partly objective.

Well, yes. I think. You might have heard it expressed as something being more than the sum of its parts. I see this everywhere in nature, and I think it was a brilliant way to design evolution.

29

Perhaps we don’t share a common gestalt on the meaning of the word? :smiley:

Thanks, and I’ll not accept your usage, having picked this nit until a dead horse fell out. :frowning: I’d be interested in, as others comment, if they’d flag whether they are more familiar with the perceptual or ethical/metaphysical usage of the term, just to satisfy my own curiosity as to whether I’m off base on this issue.

Are you a Platonist on this? Is there a real entity corresponding to a type of object that is intrinsically different from the individual objects making up the type? If so, is that God’s gestalt (in the perceptual sense) of the type? This stands to become quite interesting…

30

To answer Polycarps’s question, I had heard teh term in an ill-defined, newage mystic sort of sense first, but only when I started doing some reading in perceptual psychology did I find a treatment of the consept that made sense and made any attempt to actually define the concept in a consistent and usable manner.

In newage jargon, it used to play the fuzzy, fit-whatever-problem-you-have kind of role that is now often attributed to “energy”.
Ooops – gotta go, my crystals need cleansing.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

31

Polycarp: “Is it in fact your contention that composite things, say X, do indeed have some X-ishness not inherent in their parts or their organization?”

I do not think you should include the “or their organization” in the gestalt definition. From what I view as the “commonly understood” definition of gestalt, it is the organization or interaction which is the operative factor.

As to the confusion of the psychology roots of the word: The use of the word “gestalt” in psychology or perception is a special case of a more general concept. However, very few people ever use the word at all, and the vast majority of uses of it are in the psychology context (much like “quantum” is a general concept which has been applied to physics, but if you said “quantum”, many people would automatically assume that you were talking about physics). As Spiritus pointed out, new-agers have tried to appropriate the word as well. My personal advice to Lib would be to try to find a word or words without the pseudo-scientific baggage, so allow him to make his point more easily.

32

Thanks for the clarification of my definition, Erratum. Accepted.

Just for the record, my line:

should of course have been

33

Poly

Gosh, I’m glad you cleared that up, Poly. For some reason, reading the original sentence made me think of Escher.

Erratum

Lordy, don’t I know it!

I used to refer to the United States as fascist (which it is), but the word carries so much baggage that it weighs down any other point you might be trying to make. So now, I reluctantly call it Fabianist, which at least gets across the government control concept, but sadly misses the whole nationalism angle.

I am open to another word, but what do you recommend in place of gestalt?

34

“what do you recommend in place of gestalt?”

Complexity. Usage: “A large number of simple interactions among the constituent parts often results in the complex behavior of the whole”.

There may be other words. I’ll think about it. My policy is “never say with a single, ambiguous word what you can better say with a clear, concise, and descriptive phrase”.

35

Hmm… A number of interesting topics in no particular order:

The complementarity of the position/momentum uncertainty do not disappear inside the atom or the nucleus. For instance, it is precisely this uncertainty which provides “electron pressure” to maintain the structure of a white dwarf. Because the space in which an electron is confined by the surrounding atoms becomes small, its velocity becomes uncertain, leading to large average “velocities” in the star as a whole. This pressure resists the pull of gravity to maintain the star’s size.

It is theoretically possible to predict the behavior of a gold atom by solving the wave equation for the set of particles which componse it. It is interesting to note that the secondary and tertiary shapes of proteins are governed by subtleties of quantum-mechanical behavior.

A related term that Lib (and others) might be interested in is an “emergent quality”, in which a complex system displays behavior that is not, strictly speaking, part of its component parts, but due to their interaction. For example, a “personality” appears to be an emergent quality of a collection of neurons under some circumstances.

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

36

SingleDad, the problem with “emergent” is that it has even worse pseudo-scientific connotations than “gestalt”! (In my opinion, of course).

37

So many examples. Life is another.

I still say that it seems at best unfair, and at worst disingenuous, to complain about the ambiguity of a particular word, when a case of any arbitrary ambiguity could as easily be made against any arbitrary word.

With apologies to Earl Warren, I might not know how to define gestalt — or emergence, or God, or any other word — precisely, but I know what it is when I see it.

38

I have no problems with anyone saying that they see an ambiguous quality which they cannot precisely define.

I do not, however, lend any particular credence to any reasoning which they base upon this ambiguous and undefined quality. It is the very essence of newage mysticism. It is also, of course, the essence of Taoism. I am happy for people who find comfort in such a millieu, but I do not believe that they have found “truth”.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

39

Today seems to be nitpick day for me. Lib, it was Mr. Justice Potter Stewart who was responsible for the definition of obscenity to which you allude.

Would not the characteristic that defines a gestalt be “I may not be able to define it in detail, but I recognize it when I see it”?

40

Spiritus: “The gestalt which can be spoken is not the eternal gestalt” :rolleyes: